Tag Archives: assault weapons

“Assault Weapons” Ban of 2018, Part who-the-heck-knows-anymore

Here we go yet-a-fricking-gain.

Dems introduce bill banning assault weapons
Reps. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) and Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) formally introduced a bill on Monday to ban assault weapons.

Here are the relevant definitions from the bill:

“(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following:”

“(B) A semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, except for an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.”

“(C) Any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun.”

“(D) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following:”

Plus the usual long list of specific arms regardless of cosmetic characteristics.

Please note that these “assault weapons” need not actually have any of those additional characteristics, only the “capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following.” Could you mount a forward grip? Could you replace the barrel with a threaded one?

Of course, these clowns aren’t quite ready for the next revolution. They’ve grandfathered arms possessed by the cutoff date, because they bloody well know that they can’t quite get an outright ban without too many dead confiscation squad cops; cops who’ll refuse their suicidally unconstitutional orders. But that’s OK.

This is just Pelosi’s slippery slope. They expect an outright ban on the tens of millions (hundreds of millions?) of arms later, once they think they’ve conditioned us to accept it.

No. Your move, tyrant-wannabes.

Brian Anderson, writing at DownTrend.com, thinks, “This proposed legislation has zero chance of even reaching a vote. Republicans, who are in charge in Congress and respect the Constitution, are not going to let this war on our rights out of committee.”

I think Anderson needs to lose the rose-colored glasses. There isn’t more than a tiny handful of Republican’s who aren’t police-state cheerleaders. My guess is that this, or one of the similar “bans” currently on offer can pass.

But “good luck” with implementing that, and getting honest Americans to play “fair”.

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could use the money, what with truck repairs and bills.



GOP Baseball Shooting: “More Laws!”

If one were to take early reporting seriously (which I haven’t done for decades), some angry white guy — probably a right-wing white supremacist — shot a bunch of congressmen with a full-auto M4 assault rifle. The asshole took advantage of Virginia’s “lax” gun laws to get and carry his assault rifle.

Umm… Not so much. One, maybe two congressmen. One, maybe two cops. One, maybe two staffers. Maybe a lobbyist. Reports on that still vary.

CNN would have us believe the — oops, rabid left-wing Bernie supporter — used a Chinese knock-off of the AK-47.

Oops redux. Again, not so much. Now it was an SKS.

Note the subtle differences between this and the AK-47 and M4.

So he had an IL FOID (background check), possibly a CCW (background check), and bought his 3 guns from an Illinois FFL (background check & waiting period, background check & waiting period, background check & waiting period). He used a knock-off of a WW2-era semi-auto rifle (apparently with a 10-round fixed magazine, since it was Illinois legal. Heck, it might even still be California legal. Not an “assault weapon,” much less an assault rifle.

I can hardly bear waiting for the calls for laws that wouldn’t have stopped this. Oh. Wait.

I didn’t have to wait.

But I apparently will have to wait on national reciprocal carry while Congress addresses DC reciprocal carry only for our betters masters congresscreeps


Poll: The Next 2A Supreme Court Case

AK-74There have been several Supreme Court events pertaining to the Second Amendment during the past year.

In June, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-2 vote that domestic abusers convicted of misdemeanors can be barred from owning firearms.

The Court also refused to hear a challenge to the Connecticut “assault” weapons ban that outlaws many popular semi-automatic rifles, in effect allowing the ban to stand.

This year the Court also overturned a Massachusetts decision that determined that stun guns were not covered by the Second Amendment, siding instead with a woman who said she carried one as protection against an abusive former boyfriend.

In recent years, we’ve also seen Supreme Court victories such as Heller and MacDonald, so the Court’s Second Amendment record has been somewhat mixed.

Given what we know, which Second Amendment case would you like to see the Supreme Court take on next? Do you trust it to impartially rule on any gun-related issue?



here’s what the nra just endorsed for president

The NRA just endorsed Donald Trump for president at its national convention.

This is what they endorsed.


I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record. — Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000

It’s often argued that the American murder rate is high because guns are more available here than in other countries. Democrats want to confiscate all guns, which is a dumb idea because only the law-abiding citizens would turn in their guns and the bad guys would be the only ones left armed. The Republicans walk the NRA line and refuse even limited restrictions. — Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000

Q: Do you support the California law allowing judges to confiscate someone’s gun if they are deemed to be a threat to themselves or others?

A: This is something to look into–people with mental health problems are on the streets who shouldn’t be. — Source: CNN SOTU 2015 interview series: 2016 presidential hopefuls , Sep 20, 2015

Q: You’ve talked about wanting to keep the terror watch list but, under current law, individuals on the terror watch list and the no-fly list have been allowed to buy guns and explosives. Are you OK with that?

TRUMP: We have to have a watch list, but we have the laws already on the books as far as Second Amendment for guns, if people are on a watch list or people are sick, this is already covered in the legislation that we already have,

Q: But under current law people on the watch list are allowed to buy guns.

TRUMP: If somebody is on a watch list and an enemy of state and we know it’s an enemy of state, I would keep them away, absolutely. –ABC This Week 2015 interviews of 2016 presidential hopefuls , Nov 22, 2015

Donald_Trump_GunSo the NRA – an organization that is supposedly dedicated to preserving our Second Amendment rights – America’s First Freedom – endorsed a candidate who implied that the NRA is uncompromising and that Republicans are wrong not to bend on at least some restrictions.

The NRA endorsed a candidate who thinks it may be acceptable for a judge to confiscate the property of an individual with some nebulous concept of “mental health problems.”

The NRA endorsed a candidate who believes people placed on a secret no-fly list without due process should be relieved of their right to keep and bear arms.

The NRA endorsed a candidate who has publicly voiced his support for an “assault weapons” ban and who wants a waiting period before anyone is allowed to make a constitutionally protected purchase. Of course, now he claims he no longer supports the ban on those scary black rifles. Just in time to run for President as a Republican.

Congrats, NRA. You’ve endorsed a flip-flopping, tyrannical weasel, who has hoodwinked a plurality of Republicans into supporting him, and you fell right in line with the rest of those who care more about “winning” than they do about the direction this country is taking.

You care more about defeating the evil Hillary than you do about endorsing someone who has zero respect for basic human rights and believes they should be subject to the whims of politicians.

America’s first freedom, indeed.